• Have something to say? Register Now! and be posting in minutes!

pederson is still an idiot

Iggloo

Fly, Eagles Fly
22,952
8,566
533
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Hoopla Cash
$ 150.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
A big reason the line was struggling to run block was Isaac Seumalo. He didn't even dress yesterday.

Now that our line has stabilized, the run game is going to be better, no matter the opponent.
 

DutchBird

Well-Known Member
5,781
446
83
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
A big reason the line was struggling to run block was Isaac Seumalo. He didn't even dress yesterday.

Now that our line has stabilized, the run game is going to be better, no matter the opponent.

That I agree with (most likely).

The RB's themselves seem to run harder as well. So we have to wait and see how they look on Sunday against the Cardinals (currently 11th against the run 88 YPG, 3.2 avg).

BTW, the Eagles D currently is 3rd against the run (70.8 YPG, 4.3 avg).
 

PhillyGreen

Well-Known Member
4,328
591
113
Joined
Aug 19, 2014
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Of course Pederson came out and said so. Because he is well aware that the run-pass ratio, and a non-existent running game is NOT the way to survive and be successful over a whole season. Pederson was talking long term.

I believe he was also talking right away as well. Right after he made those comments he made changes to the O-Line and started running ball more. He made an adjustment during the season which shows promise.....something Andy Reid did not do.

Short term - winning that particular game - calling pass and pretty much abandoning the run was probably the way to go. In particular against Washington, (2nd in the NFL against the run through 3 weeks), and with the way the O-line was NOT run-blocking, also against KC.

The K.C. game is what showed Pederson that changes needed to be changed. Going into the game the Chiefs were not known to be very strong against the run. Yet we were very bad. It was after this game the O-Line change was made.

The Redskins rushing defense can be an anomoly. They may or may not be that good against the run. Time will tell. The reason I say this is due to the fact that we hardly ran the ball. The Skins got ahead of the Rams early and almost forced them into pass first. However Gurley averaged 5.5 yards per rush against them. The Skins dictated that game because the rushed the ball 36 times thus keeping the ball away from the Rams.

The Raiders had a total of 12 rushes....shocking to me to be honest. So far the Redskins have not played anyone that were commited to the run. We will find out tonight how good they really are. It is ironic IMO that the Skins recent success is based on a committment to run.

And no-one said the lack of running game was not a problem going forward. NO-ONE. The running game in the first two games WAS broken; for many reasons, of which Pederson not sticking with the run because he is Pederson and only wants to pass (as some people believe) was the least of the issues. The run-blocking by the O-line was atrocious, for one. Whenever it was not, the RB's were not running as they ought. Sole exception - somewhat - being Sproles.

Yes the running game was broken and he was fixing it. I don't have major issues with Pederson like some people here do. I am not calling for his head. I am concerned by some things but he has shown the ability to learn from mistakes and tries to correct them. I think he did a good job yesterday but he could be better. We had way too many 3rd and long situations. Wentz had dropped back 40 times this season on 3rd down and 30 of those plays were more than 6 yards.

I find it utter stupidity that people are calling for Pederson to call 25+ runs when (a) the running game is OBVIOUSLY not working that game, and (b) the weakness of that defense is the pass, and (c) the pass is actually working that game. As has been pointed out by many authors, running for the sake or running is not how things work in the NFL as it currently is - that is something that dates back to the 1980's, if not the 1940's and 1950's.

I am not sure what NFL you are watching or expecting but 27 of 32 teams this season average at least 20 rushes a game with 23 of them averaging 25.
 

_phiLLies_

shut up baby, i know it
2,033
152
63
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Location
philly
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Sorry, but again...

First of all, the success of the running game these last two games and the failure the previous two games had comparatively little to do with Doug Pederson sticking with the run (like some of the brain dead maintain and advocate as the one and only viable approach to a game, no matter what actually works and has success), and much to do with other things like:

- The Giants and the Chargers are the worst two teams against the run. The Redskins and KC are much better against the run.

- The O-line played much better, almost from the start, against the Chargers and Giants. Not only replacing Seumalo helped, but the rest of the O-line has played better as well.

- The RB's themselves seemed to run better (more intensity/decisiveness) than in the first two games). Blount looked slow the first two games.



I am getting sick and tired of the idiots that think that running the ball 35+ times a game every game is the way to success - and abuse every statistic available and ignore all context to 'prove' their point. Even if the running game is going nowhere, and the short passing game is pretty much carving up the opposing defense, the way to success and the only proper way to call plays is to run the ball over and over... Often most of the runs in games they cite as evidence came in late when the leading team was running out the clock - and the lead of the game was created by passing the ball. Similarly they consider draws and delayed runs as 'evidence' that one should run the ball, even if those are the types of runs clearly set up by a successful passing game.

Hell, many of these are the same idiots who immediately after the KC claimed that the Hunt TD-run (and generally the success of KC) was a direct result of KC 'sticking with the run', even though that was obvious and easily dismissed BS, as Reid ran even less than Pederson, and Hunt's run was set up by a Hill end-around (a play these same 'experts' want Doug Pederson be hanged for if he calls it).

Second, I am getting sick and tired of the idiots (by and large the same), who continually moan about Pederson passing too much and will not run the ball, especially after two games where the running game was NOT working, and the opposing team's weakness was the pass defence. In Pederson's first season, the run-pass ratio over the whole season was right in the middle of the pack. This shows that Pederson ran the ball last season when viable, and there is/was no reason to assume he would not run the ball this season.

Was it nice to see the Eagles run the ball effectively? Certainly. Will it be better long-term for the Eagles (and Wentz) if they continue to run the ball effectively? Certainly. Should they always run the ball? No. It depends on how the O-line is doing, the RB's are doing, and where the weaknesses of the opposing defense lies.

oh shut the hell up, seriously.

the chargers have been run on the most in the NFL this season. the giants 3rd most. washington and KC are on the other end, 1st and 4th least attempts. and even with that said, KC still ranks 23rd in average (4.3) and gives up 111 yards per game (20th) on the ground.

if pederson ran the ball against KC, he would have had at least some success just like against the giants and chargers. 13 carries between 2 backs in what was basically a close game for it's entirety is a damn joke. just like your wortheless spin that somehow everything has magically improved in the last 5 minutes to fix this so called "disaster" of a running game.

trying to say you don't need balance because something isn't currently working is laughable. so if wentz throws an INT, maybe gets sacked a couple of times or overthrows a few passes.. we should just abandon the passing game and go with the run? sounds pretty fucking stupid when you try to phase out half of your attack, doesn't it? apparently not to you.

maybe if a basketball team is 0-6 on 3 pointers in the first half, they should just refuse to take one in the second half? maybe if a kicker misses a couple 30 yard field goals, they should pass on a game winning 35 yard attempt with 1 second left to go for the TD instead?

it's just pure genius to phase out significant parts of your plan because it's not working perfect at the moment. but then again, i'm not expecting much from a fan who doesn't want to hold a coach accountable, yet seems to continually blame refs.
 

DutchBird

Well-Known Member
5,781
446
83
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
I believe he was also talking right away as well. Right after he made those comments he made changes to the O-Line and started running ball more. He made an adjustment during the season which shows promise.....something Andy Reid did not do.

I think we are talking past each other with the definition of long-term and short-term. To me short-term is winning the next game (or the game you are playing at the time (as in KC and DC)), long-term is how going forward for the rest of the season.

The K.C. game is what showed Pederson that changes needed to be changed. Going into the game the Chiefs were not known to be very strong against the run. Yet we were very bad. It was after this game the O-Line change was made.

See my comment above. Fully agree with you here.

The Redskins rushing defense can be an anomoly. They may or may not be that good against the run. Time will tell. The reason I say this is due to the fact that we hardly ran the ball. The Skins got ahead of the Rams early and almost forced them into pass first. However Gurley averaged 5.5 yards per rush against them. The Skins dictated that game because the rushed the ball 36 times thus keeping the ball away from the Rams.

The Raiders had a total of 12 rushes....shocking to me to be honest. So far the Redskins have not played anyone that were commited to the run. We will find out tonight how good they really are. It is ironic IMO that the Skins recent success is based on a committment to run.

Again, "commitment to the run" is in many ways a hollow phrase, as it is also a function of (a) the score, (b) your own strength and weakness on offense, and (c) the strength and weakness on the opposing defense.

If you are bad at running the ball, the opposing defense is good at stopping the run, and weak against the pass, it is utter stupidity to run the ball 30+ times a game.

Yes the running game was broken and he was fixing it. I don't have major issues with Pederson like some people here do. I am not calling for his head. I am concerned by some things but he has shown the ability to learn from mistakes and tries to correct them. I think he did a good job yesterday but he could be better. We had way too many 3rd and long situations. Wentz had dropped back 40 times this season on 3rd down and 30 of those plays were more than 6 yards.

No disagreement here, though I do not mind if the gain on first downs is because of short passes or runs. The 3rd and longs were a problem (and some the result of the running game not working in the first two games).

I am not sure what NFL you are watching or expecting but 27 of 32 teams this season average at least 20 rushes a game with 23 of them averaging 25.

Sure, but that stat can be highly misleading - more interesting is when they run in the game; i.e. to protect a lead, or early on or consistently being pinned back deep in one's own territory. IIRC only last season there were a number of articles (by the likes of Kapadia, Kempski and also on BGN that went a little further, and showed how extremely misleading that statistic can be. And that in many games the 'see they ran 25+ times and won, many of those runs came when the team had a lead and wanted to protect that lead (or needed to protect that defense).
 

DutchBird

Well-Known Member
5,781
446
83
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
oh shut the hell up, seriously.

the chargers have been run on the most in the NFL this season. the giants 3rd most. washington and KC are on the other end, 1st and 4th least attempts. and even with that said, KC still ranks 23rd in average (4.3) and gives up 111 yards per game (20th) on the ground.

if pederson ran the ball against KC, he would have had at least some success just like against the giants and chargers. 13 carries between 2 backs in what was basically a close game for it's entirety is a damn joke. just like your wortheless spin that somehow everything has magically improved in the last 5 minutes to fix this so called "disaster" of a running game.


Except there was NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE HE WOULD HAVE HAD SUCCESS. And worse for you, the passing game was actually working much better. As pointed out - and deliberately ignored by you - the running game in that game was a disaster, and the (short) passing game was not.

And as for me spinning, again, your imagination.

FACT 1: Change in the O-line (Seumalo out, Wisniewski and Warmack in). Definite upgrade in run-blocking, and seemingly even in pass-protection.

FACT 2: Running backs run harder. Blount runs angry now, much more so than he did against KC (and even DC).

FACT 3: O-line executing better (as they admitted themselves, after the KC game they redidicated themselves to blocking better).

FACT 4: Weaker run defenses SHOULD lead to a stronger run game.

So there is nothing 'magical' about the RB being fixed like you maintain. There have been significant changes. To what extent they continue to be effective is to be seen (and depending on the opponent).

trying to say you don't need balance because something isn't currently working is laughable. so if wentz throws an INT, maybe gets sacked a couple of times or overthrows a few passes.. we should just abandon the passing game and go with the run? sounds pretty fucking stupid when you try to phase out half of your attack, doesn't it? apparently not to you. maybe if a basketball team is 0-6 on 3 pointers in the first half, they should just refuse to take one in the second half? maybe if a kicker misses a couple 30 yard field goals, they should pass on a game winning 35 yard attempt with 1 second left to go for the TD instead? it's just pure genius to phase out significant parts of your plan because it's not working perfect at the moment. but then again, i'm not expecting much from a fan who doesn't want to hold a coach accountable, yet seems to continually blame refs.

HOLY HELL, that is one of the top straw men and misrepresentations I have seen constructed in quite some time, and that is saying something as I also frequent the Political Forum.

First of all, if the run game is working, and the passing game is not, stick to the run. Only idiots would stick with what is not working, and apparently you consider yourself among them. Against KC the run game was not working, the pass game was doing quite well.

IN A GAME you stick with what works and if there is a quick fix to what is not working apply that, and after the game you try and fix what is not working for the next week long term.

Second, I do hold coaches accountable - when it is justified. Unlike you, who have decided that Pederson is NOT a good coach on day 1, and is extremely prejudiced by that.

Third, refs deserve to be called out as much if not more than a coach, simply because they have a much greater impact upon a game. And yes, their decisions DO decide games, especially close ones. And on their decisions on two consecutive drives definitely caused a 7 point of not more points swing - and they deserve to be called out for that.
 

PhillyGreen

Well-Known Member
4,328
591
113
Joined
Aug 19, 2014
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
I think we are talking past each other with the definition of long-term and short-term. To me short-term is winning the next game (or the game you are playing at the time (as in KC and DC)), long-term is how going forward for the rest of the season.



See my comment above. Fully agree with you here.



Again, "commitment to the run" is in many ways a hollow phrase, as it is also a function of (a) the score, (b) your own strength and weakness on offense, and (c) the strength and weakness on the opposing defense.

If you are bad at running the ball, the opposing defense is good at stopping the run, and weak against the pass, it is utter stupidity to run the ball 30+ times a game.



No disagreement here, though I do not mind if the gain on first downs is because of short passes or runs. The 3rd and longs were a problem (and some the result of the running game not working in the first two games).



Sure, but that stat can be highly misleading - more interesting is when they run in the game; i.e. to protect a lead, or early on or consistently being pinned back deep in one's own territory. IIRC only last season there were a number of articles (by the likes of Kapadia, Kempski and also on BGN that went a little further, and showed how extremely misleading that statistic can be. And that in many games the 'see they ran 25+ times and won, many of those runs came when the team had a lead and wanted to protect that lead (or needed to protect that defense).


For the most part Dutch we are on the same page. We have a difference of opinions on how important the run is vs the pass but I think it is minor. It is obvious you agree the run is important. You just don't think we need to run as much as say a college team with a great running game but no real pass attack. I have always maintained the run sets up the pass not the other way around especially for the offense we run. I key example is how little the screen pass works for us. It used to be a big staple of this offense but teams are keying on it and shutting it down.

Early on Pederson was horrible in his balance. Regardless of the reasons you can't win by throwing 75% of the time no matter how good your passing game is. Last week I was real critical of him over the 4th and 8 call but did not really see a lot wrong with everything he did. I actually think he is getting better. I personally hate the Running Back By Committee approach but that is a personal opinion. It has been working so I can't hate it that much right...LOL
 

DutchBird

Well-Known Member
5,781
446
83
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
For the most part Dutch we are on the same page. We have a difference of opinions on how important the run is vs the pass but I think it is minor. It is obvious you agree the run is important. You just don't think we need to run as much as say a college team with a great running game but no real pass attack. I have always maintained the run sets up the pass not the other way around especially for the offense we run. I key example is how little the screen pass works for us. It used to be a big staple of this offense but teams are keying on it and shutting it down.
True - though that also has something to do with how the line blocks it up, and how the RB's execute. Apparently a screen pass is among the most difficult plays to execute well enough to succeed. Note BTW we had one successful play (with Smallwood), and probably would have had another succesful one if Bosa had not taken out Smallwood when he leaked out (no flag for that one, which should have been)) to receive the screen pass.

Early on Pederson was horrible in his balance. Regardless of the reasons you can't win by throwing 75% of the time no matter how good your passing game is. Last week I was real critical of him over the 4th and 8 call but did not really see a lot wrong with everything he did. I actually think he is getting better. I personally hate the Running Back By Committee approach but that is a personal opinion. It has been working so I can't hate it that much right...LOL

I would say you cannot win consistently when throwing 75% of the time (there are games/circumstances where you can and have to). And I think one seriously underestimates Pederson if one believes Pederson is not aware of that.

BTW, I agree that the RB by committee approach is not ideal (though it somewhat protects you from having it disappear when your nr 1 RB goes down). Though I am fine with the RB by committee approach if it allows the (re-)allocation of resources to other areas of the team that need to be fixed, as I think that RB is the only position where you can survive long term with a committee approach. Though somehow the Eagles seem hell bent on proving that you can also committee the Guard position.
 

_phiLLies_

shut up baby, i know it
2,033
152
63
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Location
philly
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Except there was NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE HE WOULD HAVE HAD SUCCESS. And worse for you, the passing game was actually working much better. As pointed out - and deliberately ignored by you - the running game in that game was a disaster, and the (short) passing game was not.

And as for me spinning, again, your imagination.

FACT 1: Change in the O-line (Seumalo out, Wisniewski and Warmack in). Definite upgrade in run-blocking, and seemingly even in pass-protection.

FACT 2: Running backs run harder. Blount runs angry now, much more so than he did against KC (and even DC).

FACT 3: O-line executing better (as they admitted themselves, after the KC game they redidicated themselves to blocking better).

FACT 4: Weaker run defenses SHOULD lead to a stronger run game.

So there is nothing 'magical' about the RB being fixed like you maintain. There have been significant changes. To what extent they continue to be effective is to be seen (and depending on the opponent).



HOLY HELL, that is one of the top straw men and misrepresentations I have seen constructed in quite some time, and that is saying something as I also frequent the Political Forum.

First of all, if the run game is working, and the passing game is not, stick to the run. Only idiots would stick with what is not working, and apparently you consider yourself among them. Against KC the run game was not working, the pass game was doing quite well.

IN A GAME you stick with what works and if there is a quick fix to what is not working apply that, and after the game you try and fix what is not working for the next week long term.

Second, I do hold coaches accountable - when it is justified. Unlike you, who have decided that Pederson is NOT a good coach on day 1, and is extremely prejudiced by that.

Third, refs deserve to be called out as much if not more than a coach, simply because they have a much greater impact upon a game. And yes, their decisions DO decide games, especially close ones. And on their decisions on two consecutive drives definitely caused a 7 point of not more points swing - and they deserve to be called out for that.

stop implying the passing game against KC was effective, good, great or whatever variation you've been using these last couple of weeks. it makes you look like a fool.

brady, at home, could only produce 16/36 for 267 and 0 TD. rivers was 20/40 for 237 with 3 INT/0 TD. wentz had to throw 46 passes to go for 333. he was sacked SIX times, threw a costly pick and fumbled twice. but what's that matter to you, especially if he gets injured? might as well start your spin that he can get injured at any point. there was one solid drive that resulted in a TD. the rest was mixed garbage, including a last minute TD.

it's been proven the eagles did just fine with the limited runs they had. just because YOU don't like the fact sproles had to keep bouncing it outside, or whatever the hell issue you had, doesn't negate those yards. part of any running game is getting smashed at the line, taking losses and getting stuffed. just like part of any passing game is getting sacked, stripped, picked and incomplete passes resulting in nothing. you don't ever abandon either to the point where it's lopsided and the defense knows what you're doing.

saying the refs have a much greater impact on the game than head coaches pretty much seals your stupidity on this.

you're a boring homer, something i've nicely avoided wasting time on over the years. the fact you lump all these writers, fans, analysts, people in the business who critcize pederson for various reasons as "idiots".. yeah, i can see why you frequent the political forum.
 

DutchBird

Well-Known Member
5,781
446
83
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
stop implying the passing game against KC was effective, good, great or whatever variation you've been using these last couple of weeks. it makes you look like a fool.

You are an idiot if you equate effective with good or great. Then again, that does not surprise me at all...

brady, at home, could only produce 16/36 for 267 and 0 TD. rivers was 20/40 for 237 with 3 INT/0 TD. wentz had to throw 46 passes to go for 333. he was sacked SIX times, threw a costly pick and fumbled twice. but what's that matter to you, especially if he gets injured? might as well start your spin that he can get injured at any point. there was one solid drive that resulted in a TD. the rest was mixed garbage, including a last minute TD.

So Wentz did better than Rivers, and slightly worse than Brady. And again, you are setting up a massive straw man if you say that does not matter to me, or that I do not care about Wentz' health.

it's been proven the eagles did just fine with the limited runs they had. just because YOU don't like the fact sproles had to keep bouncing it outside, or whatever the hell issue you had, doesn't negate those yards. part of any running game is getting smashed at the line, taking losses and getting stuffed. just like part of any passing game is getting sacked, stripped, picked and incomplete passes resulting in nothing. you don't ever abandon either to the point where it's lopsided and the defense knows what you're doing.

The only one who thinks that the Eagles did just fine in the running game in KC is you.

saying the refs have a much greater impact on the game than head coaches pretty much seals your stupidity on this.

And I never said that at all - at least not for an Eagles game this season. And I actually have never said that in the first place. That said, refs can and do decide close games with their decisions (by definition), and if they are wrong they can cost a team a win.

Yes, I am critical of refs (in any sport and in any game) because (a) I want them to be consistent (at a minimum), and (b) prefer for them to be correct in their calls. If they are not, then I do reserve the right to call them out.

you're a boring homer, something i've nicely avoided wasting time on over the years. the fact you lump all these writers, fans, analysts, people in the business who critcize pederson for various reasons as "idiots".. yeah, i can see why you frequent the political forum.

Except I am far from a homer - as anyone who has known me for a while on these boards can attest.

The irony of you calling me a biased homer is rich - you have decided from day 1 that Pederson is a bad coach, and have lost sight of reality because of it. If there is a legit point to criticize Pederson, then I have no problem with it, and never have.

If people are criticizing Pederson the way you are doing, then yes, I do reserve the right to call them idiots. And yes, people who think that running the ball 25+ times against KC or Washington would have won us the game (or even kept it close for 4 quarters) I consider idiots, because they ignore what was actually happening in the game.

Hell, even many authors who normally have no problems with going after Pederson did not complain about the KC game, and the fact that Pederson chose to pass the ball.

If you point at the stats of Sproles as the running game going anywhere against KC, you do the same as suggesting that merely looking at GDP growth or DOW growth will tell you the economy is doing great. If you believe that, then indeed you are an idiot.
 

_phiLLies_

shut up baby, i know it
2,033
152
63
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Location
philly
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
what the hell are the chiefs and redskins doing?! the skins have 16 carries for 60 yards and the chiefs 11 carries for 80 yards. i mean, it's only halftime.. don't they understand it's impossible to run the ball against each other's defense? crazy!
 

old duke

Well-Known Member
6,032
370
83
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Location
Lancaster, Pa.
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Can we finally close out this thread? Pederson is not an idiot. I think we can all agree on that now.
 

Premium

Member
293
12
18
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Beating two 0-4 teams in a row can create the perception that you have a good team. Proves they are not a lower echelon team perhaps, but not much more.
 

_phiLLies_

shut up baby, i know it
2,033
152
63
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Location
philly
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Can we finally close out this thread? Pederson is not an idiot. I think we can all agree on that now.

you shouldn't be taking the 'idiot' part literally. it's obviously meant in the sense he wasn't and/or hasn't been doing the job to a proper level while making repetitive mistakes.
 

_phiLLies_

shut up baby, i know it
2,033
152
63
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Location
philly
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
my last reply to you on this..

You are an idiot if you equate effective with good or great. Then again, that does not surprise me at all...

again, whatever 'spin' you wish to place on it. whether you detailed the eagles passing attack against KC as good, solid, great, special, awesome, spectacular, decent, etc. you clearly are implying it DID THE JOB.

and for the billionth time, it did NOT. wentz was sacked and pressured all game long. they moved the ball crisply on one drive. ONE DRIVE. there was a flukish big play to ertz before the half that should have been picked and a last minute drive in the 4th. the rest was just ugly as fuck.

So Wentz did better than Rivers, and slightly worse than Brady. And again, you are setting up a massive straw man if you say that does not matter to me, or that I do not care about Wentz' health.

i see you completely missed the point. while you were busy pimping out the KC and washington run defense, i pointed out that KC's pass defense was significantly better. and of course, it played out that way during the game. while you continue to berate the running game from that time frame, the glorious passing attack had 13 points on the board until the last minute of the game. yet, you act like there is no chance in hell they could have eclipsed that mark if they ran the ball more. big YAWNNN.

The only one who thinks that the Eagles did just fine in the running game in KC is you.

yes, i'm am the only one in the world. there aren't articles about it. no one else here thinks they did OK with the limited amount of runs. no one. just me. i'm the only one who has mentioned it. you caught me.

And I never said that at all - at least not for an Eagles game this season. And I actually have never said that in the first place. That said, refs can and do decide close games with their decisions (by definition), and if they are wrong they can cost a team a win.

Yes, I am critical of refs (in any sport and in any game) because (a) I want them to be consistent (at a minimum), and (b) prefer for them to be correct in their calls. If they are not, then I do reserve the right to call them out.

UMMMM..

"Third, refs deserve to be called out as much if not more than a coach, simply because they have a much greater impact upon a game."

just stop, spin champ. like you spin how the refs can decide games, their impact is so great, they're costing the eagles.. and then you blatantly disregard the obvious interference by mills in the endzone. just stop. it's wasting space.
 

_phiLLies_

shut up baby, i know it
2,033
152
63
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Location
philly
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
forgot to add; i was quick to give pederson credit these last 2 games for doing what many fans want and what every NFL coach should know.. a balanced attack is crucial to overall winning!! if he's learning on the job, GREAT. but if he quickly falls back to his old habits, he's certainly going to hear it from fans and media.
 

eaglesnut

Well-Known Member
28,488
5,548
533
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Location
Heaven
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
The best coaching in the conference has us at 3-1. The only loss being to the team with the best coaching in the league.

Those two really know what they are doing. Might meet again this year.
 

PhoenixEagles1

Well-Known Member
15,897
976
113
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,730.36
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Can we finally close out this thread? Pederson is not an idiot. I think we can all agree on that now.

I dont know man... I still question him. We had a 4th and 1 this week from mid field near half and he punts. Im all for punting in that situation but the week before with very similar scores and time he goes for it on 4th and 8 from mid field and he holds a press conference backing up his decision. Why is 4th and 8 smart and then 4th and 1 a punt situation.
 

old duke

Well-Known Member
6,032
370
83
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Location
Lancaster, Pa.
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Can't we just enjoy where we are at this point? C'mon Man. One week at a time.
 
Top